If the police think you're guilty of a crime, you will be punished for that crime. It's perfectly legal to keep innocent people in jail and never try them (if you find the right loophole). It's perfectly legal to intimidate or confuse a 'confession' out of someone (as long as the officers don't admit to any misconduct). It's perfectly legal to lie to a suspect to scare them into pleading guilty to a lesser crime to avoid a harsher sentence.

If you think the police are guilty of a crime, you will be punished for making the accusation. The burden of proof is never on the police, yet they are the guardians of evidence. If there is evidence damning them, they will destroy it. If there is no evidence challenging your credibility, they will create it. They can charge you with anything they want in retaliation, and they can prove it by saying it is so.

Do not fark with police. Stay the fark away from police. Do not call the police unless you are going to die otherwise. Do not call them to protect property. Do not call them to catch someone else breaking the law. Do not give the police any reason whatsoever to know your name.

FTFA:acknowledging that if their allegations are proven false, they can be charged with perjury,

Pretty okay with this, provided the underlined portions are held true. Should be a case by case basis, not another idiotic "Zero Tolerance" law.

FTFA:Furthermore, this bill prohibits a Kansas law enforcement agency from opening an investigation into a complaint if another law enforcement agency has already investigated the complaint and found in favor of the officer.

Absolutely NOT okay with this, however. This prevents the Kansas State Police and Kansas Bureau of Investigation from investigating police corruption and abuses against the citizens of the State. Fark that shiat.

FTFA:In other words, this bill would allow police departments to arrest the people who file complaints against police officers.

No, it doesn't, unless there is something in the bill that is not being reported by DailyKOS. The wording of the bill states the complaint would not only have to be found unsubstantiated, but outright false and malicious.

The ONE time in my life I called the cops, I was handcuffed. Long story short, drunk ex-girlfriend, blah, blah. She was smashing out my windows. I called the cops, they arrive and handcuff me to "stabilize the situation". In the end, they let her drunk ass drive off and told me I'd be arrested if there were anymore calls that night. Fark every single one of them. I'll take my chances without these morons.

I think there should be civilian over-sight. No internal affairs BS. A complaint should be made to a non-police group with investigative powers. If police are needed during an investigation they should be pulled from far flung regions far away from where the alleged abuse happened.

Any police officer caught planting evidence should get the same number of years that would have befallen their victim. Any police officer that forgets they are there to protect and serve should be fired....and banned from law enforcement forever.

hardinparamedic:You don't think that Police would be in any position to be at a higher risk of someone filing an exaggerated or false claim?

I would think because of the perception of retaliation the police would be at a lower risk of someone filing a claim at all. I won't even ask a cop for directions let alone file some complaint with my name attached to it.

My dealings with police is always the same, no matter what the situation, even if I'm the one who is a victim of a crime.

Cop: 'What do you remember about what happened?'Me: 'nothing, I was looking at something else at the time'cop: 'well, did you hear anything?'me: 'nope'

Sure, I've had a couple cops try to get heavy handed with me, and I just shrug it off and ask if I'm free to go. I have zero trust of all cops, and it's the best way of staying safe from the actual bad cops. So I keep interaction between the cops and myself to a minimum.

Sure, there may be a time where I will need a cop to save me some unknown danger, but that's what I pay my taxes for. I don't pay taxes to be treated like a potential suspect at all times thanks.

How can anyone think it should be legal for an officer to have the right to be able to read over the entire claim against them? It gives the officer(s) in question an easy out, since they can always come up with a good story that will back up their side of a claim against them.

The only way to say that this suggested law is legal is to then state that every citizen of the state of Kansas is already a suspected criminal, and therefore anything they may say against an officer is considered to be suspect.

codenamewizard:I think there should be civilian over-sight. No internal affairs BS. A complaint should be made to a non-police group with investigative powers. If police are needed during an investigation they should be pulled from far flung regions far away from where the alleged abuse happened.

Any police officer caught planting evidence should get the same number of years that would have befallen their victim. Any police officer that forgets they are there to protect and serve should be fired....and banned from law enforcement forever.

License cops the same they do Nurses, Doctors and Paramedics. At the State level. Establish a board made up of lawyers, civilian members, and experts in law enforcement best practices. Require every cop to carry "malpractice" insurance the same they do healthcare providers and firefighters.

hardinparamedic:FTFA: acknowledging that if their allegations are proven false, they can be charged with perjury,

Pretty okay with this, provided the underlined portions are held true. Should be a case by case basis, not another idiotic "Zero Tolerance" law.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You're obviously thinking like normal people here instead of someone with malicious intent. With "proven false" it can be opened up to simple mistakes. Say a witnesses name was Will Johnson and it's really John Williamson; bang, perjury charge. Say officer Bill showed up first when it was officer Adam; bang, perjury charge. There's an entire laundry list that "proven false" can be applied to. You and I might say that would be stretching the law, but a malicious prosecutor could intimidate potential complaintants with it.

If the Kansas Legislature was actually wanting to be fair, they should have phrased it like "proven fabrication" so intent to lie was also included.

hardinparamedic:FTFA: acknowledging that if their allegations are proven false, they can be charged with perjury,

Pretty okay with this, provided the underlined portions are held true. Should be a case by case basis, not another idiotic "Zero Tolerance" law.

What if you believe an allegation is true, and it isn't?

It's definitely possible for a guy who got beaten by/in a crowd to think a cop did it. Maybe he thinks it's cop #6202 and it was actually cop #6220 or something. If he has facts wrong, provably so, it doesn't mean the complaint is entirely invalid, and it certainly doesn't mean the complainant should be liable/charged.

Please quote where I have "apologized" for anything. I spent six months defending myself along with a non-commissioned deputy against a false sexual assault charge because I cut the clothes off a drunk teenager to ensure she didn't have a life-threatening injury. Somehow, despite a woman deputy in the back with this little tart, we both managed to tag-team rape her in-between the scene and the Regional Medical Center.

Headso:I would think because of the perception of retaliation the police would be at a lower risk of someone filing a claim at all.

Some cop decided to have his off duty pig* mess with my wife after he pulled her over.

I was on speaker phone for part of it, so after she hung up I called the police about it and the county cops denied she had been pulled over. Either they were lying or the sop who pulled her over didn't call it in. We were going to file a complaint but a buddy who was a state trooper said while it was completely farked up, and as far as he knew broke several rules, that it wasn't worth it. We have to drive through the county and they would fark with us in the future, and since there was no clear proof of breaking the law absolutely nothing would happen.